列出资源集内的 key

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the environment-variable requirement and indicates the output will include key presence ('是否有值'), which is helpful. But it does not mention read-only behavior, error conditions, pagination, or what happens if the required environment variable is missing.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single sentence that front-loads the core action and resource, then adds the value-presence detail and the environment-variable prerequisite with no wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is simple with two params and no output schema; the description explains what the call returns (resource keys and whether each has a value) and the setup prerequisite. It lacks a few edge details such as error behavior or projectId filtering semantics, but is largely sufficient for correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds little beyond naming the resource set; it does not clarify the optional projectId filtering behavior in the prose, but the schema covers it. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific action ('列出') and a clear resource scope: all resource keys within a specified resource set, including whether they have values. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_resource_sets by focusing on keys inside a set rather than the sets themselves, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies its use case: listing keys in a resource set, and it gives a necessary prerequisite ('需配置环境变量 I18N_API_KEY'). However, it provides no guidance on when to prefer this tool over related siblings such as list_resource_sets or download_resources, and no exclusion criteria.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.